1 Submission - Improve the Model for Returning Lands to Aboriginal people. Opening Statement The whole idea of return of lands to Aboriginal people carries with it notions of responsible leadership, morality, forward thinking, establishing societal values, and inclusion. For too long Tasmania ignores its own history, of how it came to be and the consequences for Aboriginal people. The stark reality is that modern Tasmania was built on stolen lands; and that Aboriginal people have been denied our right to inherit our property. The process of land return seeks to remedy dispossession by confronting the facts of the past and in one fell swoop, building a better Tasmania. Successive parliaments have led the debate and placed their stamp on the type of society they wished Tasmania to be. The importance of this momentum cannot be overly stated. The effect is of this whole process is reconciliation and inclusion. Background Aboriginal people owned the whole of Tasmania, its islands and waters, both inland and offshore. As a result of a violent invasion by land hungry white people, Aboriginal people were dispossessed of their lands and our population reduced from an estimated 10,000 to just 100 people in 30 years. In all history, Tasmania’s shocking treatment of Aboriginal people is among the worst ever recorded. Yet, despite the genocide and the theft of land, Tasmania has rarely showed sympathy towards Aboriginal people. Tribal Aboriginals were deliberately kept away from their descendants of mixed marriages, effectively cutting off access to much cultural knowledge. The descendants were not only denied property rights – having the term half-caste applied to them, they were denied identity as Aboriginals. While Premier Hodgman’s attempt to re- define who is an Aboriginal regrettably imitates a feature of the racist past. The failure to return land to Aboriginal people over the last 13 years is a let-down for Aboriginal expectations and hopefully, a temporary setback in the quest for a better and more just society. In our view, action must be taken to avoid continuation of the hard attitudes of the 1800s towards Aborigines and the refusal from the 19th century to acknowledge any Aboriginal inheritance of property. Against the tide of white dominant attitudes, Aboriginal people have consistently reminded white Tasmania of their tainted claim to Tasmania. On 17th February, 1846, Aborigines Walter George Arthur, Chief of the Ben Lomond tribe, King Alexander, King Tippoo, 1 2 Neptune, Washington, John Allen, Davey Bruney and Augustus, petitioned Queen Victoria about the dispossession and the making of an agreement with Robinson and the colonial governor about their lands. In 1883, the heads of all the leading families of the ‘half-castes’ in Bass Straits - John Smith,1 John Maynard2 and Tom Mansell3 by their mark, and by George Everett,4 Henry Beeton snr.5 and Phillip Thomas6 by their signatures – wrote: ‘We are under no obligation to the government. Whatever land they have reserved for our use is a token of their honesty, inasmuch as it has been given in lieu of that grand island (Tasmania) which they have taken from our ancestors.’7 On 19th February, 1909 Henry ‘Harry’ Beeton told Westlake that his mother’s tribe is Cape Portland and they roamed from Georges Bay (St Helens Point) and Falmouth to Low Head lighthouse, all the north east. Had there been any form of British justice available at that time, Harry Armstrong, John Maynard, Francis Maynard, Lucy Beeton, James Beeton, Henry Beeton, Sarah Beeton, Rachael Beeton, Fanny Cochrane-Smith, Dolly Dalrymple, George Everett, Philip Thomas, Jane Everett, Elizabeth Everett, James Everett, John Smith, Ted Mansell, Jane Smith, Thomas Mansell, Nancy Mansell, Tommy Rew, Judy Mansell and David Maynard, to name a few, could successfully have claimed native title to most, if not all, of Tasmania. As judges said in the famous Mabo decision, [it is difficult now] to ascertain what proportion of the lands of the continent were affected by such common law native titles. Obviously, the proportion was a significant one. Conceivably, it was the whole.8 By claiming to be legitimate owners of so-called Crown lands, successive Tasmanian administrations have taken full advantage of the oppression and powerlessness of Tasmanian Aborigines and denied them any access to justice. Crown lands were taken from Aboriginal people by mass killings, torture, rape and genocide. These lands should be returned to Aboriginal people, if only to make amends for wrongdoing and to cleanse the conscience of Tasmanian society. From time to time, Tasmanians have shown a compassionate capacity by recognising a deep injustice when they saw it. On 4th March, 1909 Edward Stephens, teacher on Cape Barren Island wrote: The mother of Mr John Maynard [Wyerlooberer] belonged to a tribe that owned 1 John Tasman Smith died 10 Oct. 1898, age 77 son of Sarah, Tasmanian Aboriginal. John married Jane Maynard. 2 Son of Aboriginal woman Wyerlooberer aka Elizabeth ‘Betty.’ John was born 1833 and died 7th Jan, 1912. He married Frances Everett 1837-1869 and Eva Chappel Stafford born 28th Sept, 1855. 3 also called Sydney, Tom was born in 1837, son of Julia Mansell (also called Black Judy). Tom married Nancy Thomas. He was still living in 1877 when birth of son Edward was recorded at Georgetown. He died at Launceston General Hospital. 4 George was eldest son of Watikawitja. He was born on 5th Jan, 1835 and died 21st June, 1883. He married Jane Beeton 5 Henry was a son of Watanimarina. He was born 7th March 1835, died 10 December 1913. Henry married Sarah Everett. 6 Phillip was son of Woretemoeteyenner. Phillip was born 1831and died 28 Feb. 1915. He married Jane West and Eliza Bligh. 7 Tasmanian (Launceston, Tas. : 1881 - 1895), Saturday 2 June 1883, page 593 8 Deane and Gaudron JJ. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) ("Mabo case") [1992] HCA 23, 40. 2 3 the whole of the land, from Circular Head to Cape Grim. The mothers of Phil Thomas, and Harry Beeton, and Mrs [Nance] Mansell, were children of the tribe which owned the land, say, from Cape Portland to Piper's River, and the white people took all this land from them.9 In more recent times there were political leaders who also could recognise a great injustice, and determined that steps should be taken to rectify the problem. In 1995, Premier Ray Groom presented the Aboriginal Lands Bill 1995 to the Parliament. The Premier said: ‘This is historic legislation. It transfers twelve areas of land of special cultural and historic significance and is a major advance for the Aboriginal people of Tasmania. [This] is plain evidence of a more tolerant and understanding society than existed in the past.’ This all too brief account of the history of the land returns process and its rationale stands in stark contrast to the lack of understanding behind land returns expressed in the government review of the land returns process. If the government was genuinely seeking to engage Aboriginal people on land returns it would have first held talks about which areas of land might be specifically targeted for return. After that step, consideration of how best to return those lands to the Aboriginal people could begin. However, there have not been land returns for 13 years. There is no indication that this government intends to restart the process, despite repeated statements from current Premier Hodgman saying he was open to land returns. It follows that Aboriginal people, and the public, are being invited to comment on a non-existent process. This review has a false premise – that there is a land return arrangement that might be improved. There is no such arrangement and there has not been one for 13 years. A cynic might conclude that this whole process is prejudged: the Premier has a plan to undermine or abandon land returns and this review is nothing more than an exercise to attract anti-land returns sentiment. The failure of the Review paper to appreciate the rationale between land returns and land purchases encourages dissent. Or worse, the Review is intended to provide government with the views it is after, namely that lands should be transferred to certain friendly corporations. The review of the dual naming policy is evidence of a government with a predetermined mind-set. For political reasons, the government was opposed to the TAC palawa karni and wanted to give government friendly, but anti-TAC forces, the opportunity to submit arguments supportive of government. The result of that review was A clear view expressed across submissions was that local and regional Aboriginal groups and organisations should be directly consulted about Aboriginal and dual name proposals, particularly those proposed in their local area and that many Aboriginal community organisations and local groups are seeking opportunities to inform Aboriginal and dual naming in Tasmania.10(Our emphasis) The same might be expected here. With this announced review, in the same Press Release that Jacqui Petrusma, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs announced the review, she also announced funding for the TRACCA group. TRACCA is notoriously hostile towards Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) and the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania (ALCT). This is an indication of bias. 9 Daily Telegraph (Launceston, Tas. : 1883 - 1928), Friday 5 February 1909, page 6 10 Executive Summary, page 4 3 4 Land returns compared to property grants The review fails to distinguish land returns from land grants. Land grants to corporations is not rectifying dispossession in the way Premier Groom or his successors Jim Bacon and Paul Lennon meant. Buildings purchased for the providing of services to Aboriginal people, or farms, or leases for tourist ventures, are instances of government social and economic inclusion policy.